Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

i've published EVERYTHING i know about scriptwriting on youtube for 2 years. the problem is NOBODY watches it in the right order. so i sequenced all of it into a 6-module course. 3 hours. every framework i've extracted from 8,000+ scripts, in the order it needs to be learned,... with an action item at the end of every module. what's inside: - the classifier module. how youtube's trust score gets assigned before your first upload goes live, the 40-word vocabulary cluster flagging generated writing, and the 5 checks i run on every script before it ships. module 1 for a reason, because everything else is worthless if you're already flagged. - the hook module the 2 frameworks, the 4 hook types split by format, the 8 psychological triggers and which combinations belong to which format, plus the 6 hook killers. the most in-depth breakdown of hooks i've ever recorded. - the retention module the delay disease, the context dump, the payoff void, and the mini payoff mapping method. 5 years of scriptwriting compressed into 10 minutes. - the storytelling module the 4,000 year old structural pattern running underneath every high-retention video on the platform, mapped beat by beat against a modern faceless script. - the live teardown 1 script broken down line by line against the $6,137.98 it produced, with every curiosity gap plotted against the runtime. - the business module how faceless operations get structured past the single-channel stage, what gets delegated, what never leaves your hands, and how niche selection changes when you're building a portfolio instead of a channel. all explained by me + wanner cash cow! plus the sequencing logic for why each module sits where it does, and the action item that turns each one into a change in your next script instead of 30 minutes of nodding. all backed by 8,000+ scripts written across 50+ niches, 200M+ views generated, and $5M+ produced for clients off those scripts. like + comment "COURSE" and i'll send the whole thing over (must be following so i can DM + will stop sending these out in 48h)show more

Haris

9,118 subscribers

57,192 views • 12 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Most brands don’t have a “creative” problem. They have a hook problem. If your first 3 seconds don’t spark curiosity or tension, the ad is dead — long before editing, actors, or UGC scripts matter. Here’s the crazy part: Winning hooks follow the same repeatable structures. Whenever I analyze ads that spent $80K+ or did $1M+ in revenue, the pattern is obvious: → The opener does 90% of the heavy lifting. I’ve been building a database of the best-performing hook formulas — and even training an Arcads script module to generate them fast. Want it? Comment HOOKS and I’ll send it.

Most brands don’t have a “creative” problem. They have a hook problem. If your first 3 seconds don’t spark curiosity or tension, the ad is dead — long before editing, actors, or UGC scripts matter. Here’s the crazy part: Winning hooks follow the same repeatable structures. Whenever I analyze ads that spent $80K+ or did $1M+ in revenue, the pattern is obvious: → The opener does 90% of the heavy lifting. I’ve been building a database of the best-performing hook formulas — and even training an Arcads script module to generate them fast. Want it? Comment HOOKS and I’ll send it.

Dennis Willeboordse 👨🏼‍🦰 eCommerce Growth

26,004 views • 10 months ago

i’m giving away a $10k/mo AI scriptwriting consultant trained on EVERYTHING i’ve learned after writing 8,000+ faceless YouTube scripts. it knows EVERY pattern i used to generate: - 200M+ views - $5M+ in client revenue - killer scripts across 50+ niches all you gotta do is paste your: - script - niche - video type - content length and this AI consultant will: - rewrite your hook - audit your pacing - flag weak curiosity gaps - rebuild your payoff structure - check if your script sounds AI-written - give you a production-ready revision plan no BS like "make it more engaging" or "add better storytelling" just direct, opinionated feedback based on proven retention patterns from my 3+ years of experience it will feel like having a 1:1 audit from me, which i charge 4-figures for and for 24h, you can get it for free! 1. just like this post 2. comment YOUR NAME 3. follow me (Haris) and i will DM you the link!

i’m giving away a $10k/mo AI scriptwriting consultant trained on EVERYTHING i’ve learned after writing 8,000+ faceless YouTube scripts. it knows EVERY pattern i used to generate: - 200M+ views - $5M+ in client revenue - killer scripts across 50+ niches all you gotta do is paste your: - script - niche - video type - content length and this AI consultant will: - rewrite your hook - audit your pacing - flag weak curiosity gaps - rebuild your payoff structure - check if your script sounds AI-written - give you a production-ready revision plan no BS like "make it more engaging" or "add better storytelling" just direct, opinionated feedback based on proven retention patterns from my 3+ years of experience it will feel like having a 1:1 audit from me, which i charge 4-figures for and for 24h, you can get it for free! 1. just like this post 2. comment YOUR NAME 3. follow me (Haris) and i will DM you the link!

Haris

22,131 views • 1 month ago

20 days ago, I connected Claude Code to my newly created instagram handle.. I gained 4.3M views and 6500+ followers in less than a month [ i post Ai generated animated stories ] Full workflow: i let claude study my account before i write another reel.. This is the cleanest content workflow i've built on claude. give it your IG first. 4 prompts handle the rest.. niche research, the reel script, the hook, and the daily automation.. the whole loop is basically, give claude your IG → find what's working → write retention-optimized scripts → engineer the hook → automate the daily output.. ▫️ Setup: give claude your instagram open claude code. claude code has a built-in web tool that browses any public URL. or install any agentic browser like Browser Harness or Firecrawl or Comet browser paste this with your handle filled in: "Browse and pull the last 30 reels and posts. Analyze my recurring topics, top-performing hooks, formats, and engagement patterns. Then map out my actual audience and what they consistently respond to." claude reads your profile, pulls every reel down, and now has the context to personalize every prompt below to YOUR account, not a generic niche. if you're on claude desktop, the same works with firecrawl MCP connected. ▫️ Prompt 1 find what actually goes viral in your niche: "Analyze the highest-performing Instagram Reels, TikToks, and Reddit posts in the [niche] niche from the last 30 days. Identify repeating hooks, visual styles, emotional triggers, and content formats that consistently generate high engagement. Then summarize the 5 strongest content angles optimized for AI-generated content and short-form videos." run this after the setup. you get 5 angles backed by what's already working in your niche, cross-checked against what's already working on YOUR account. ▫️ Prompt 2 write a high-retention reel script "Write a short-form Instagram Reel script about [topic] with an aggressive hook in the first 2 seconds. Create immediate curiosity, tension, or controversy to stop scrolling, then deliver a fast and satisfying payoff. Keep it under 30 seconds and optimize the structure for watch time, replays, comments, and shares. Finish with a subtle CTA." the line that matters: "optimize the structure for watch time, replays, comments, and shares." claude writes for the metrics, not just the word count. ▫️ Prompt 3 engineer better hooks "Study the top-performing Reels in [niche] and break down the hook structure, pacing, and emotional triggers used in the first 3 seconds. Then generate 5 new hook variations that are even more curiosity-driven, emotionally charged, and optimized to stop scrolling instantly. Focus on triggers like surprise, fear, ego, urgency, or desire." most reels die in the first 2 seconds. this prompt has claude reverse-engineer what already works, then give you 5 sharper versions to swap in. ▫️ Prompt 4 automate the whole workflow "Build a complete AI-powered content workflow for Instagram in the [niche] niche. The system should identify trending topics daily, generate high-retention scripts, create matching AI visuals, turn them into short-form videos, and generate optimized captions and hashtags. Structure everything as a repeatable workflow designed for consistent daily posting and growth." once the niche and script structure are validated, this turns it into a daily loop. one prompt that handles topic → script → visual → video → caption. these 4 prompts are the building blocks. the setup is what makes them yours. your real value is in the [niche] you plug in. content workflow built in one weekend, daily posting on autopilot from monday.

Axel Bitblaze 🪓

201,810 views • 3 months ago

I just built a Claude skill that writes 20 Meta ad hooks in 60 seconds 🤯 Give it your product, your audience, and your best-performing angles → it writes hooks across 10 proven frameworks, each one targeted at a specific customer pain point. All inside Claude Cowork. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who are still writing hooks from scratch every time they need new creative — staring at a blank doc, scrolling competitors for inspiration, and recycling the same 3 angles because you ran out of ideas two weeks ago. If you're launching Meta Ads and your hook writing process looks like this — open a Google Doc, try to remember what worked last time, write 5 hooks that all sound the same, run them, 4 flop, go back to the doc, repeat ... This skill replaces the entire process: → You give it your product name, key benefits, and target customer → It writes hooks across 10 frameworks: problem-solution, curiosity gap, bold claim, social proof, before/after, us vs them, question, contrarian, urgency, and storytelling → Each hook targets a specific pain point — not generic "Shop now" copy → Generates 2 variations per framework so you have options to test → Outputs everything organized by framework with notes on when to use each one → Takes about 60 seconds No blank page. No recycling the same 3 angles. No writing 5 hooks that all sound like the same ad. What you get: → 20 hooks across 10 proven frameworks, ready to drop into your ads → Each hook written for a specific customer pain point, not a generic audience → Framework labels so you know which hook type you're testing → A reusable skill — run it for every new product, every new campaign, every new angle sprint → Works from a product brief — no API connection, no CSV export, no setup beyond installing the skill One product brief. 20 hooks. 60 seconds. I put together the full skill file plus a playbook showing how to install it, customize the frameworks, and run your first hook sprint. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "HOOKS" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

I just built a Claude skill that writes 20 Meta ad hooks in 60 seconds 🤯 Give it your product, your audience, and your best-performing angles → it writes hooks across 10 proven frameworks, each one targeted at a specific customer pain point. All inside Claude Cowork. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who are still writing hooks from scratch every time they need new creative — staring at a blank doc, scrolling competitors for inspiration, and recycling the same 3 angles because you ran out of ideas two weeks ago. If you're launching Meta Ads and your hook writing process looks like this — open a Google Doc, try to remember what worked last time, write 5 hooks that all sound the same, run them, 4 flop, go back to the doc, repeat ... This skill replaces the entire process: → You give it your product name, key benefits, and target customer → It writes hooks across 10 frameworks: problem-solution, curiosity gap, bold claim, social proof, before/after, us vs them, question, contrarian, urgency, and storytelling → Each hook targets a specific pain point — not generic "Shop now" copy → Generates 2 variations per framework so you have options to test → Outputs everything organized by framework with notes on when to use each one → Takes about 60 seconds No blank page. No recycling the same 3 angles. No writing 5 hooks that all sound like the same ad. What you get: → 20 hooks across 10 proven frameworks, ready to drop into your ads → Each hook written for a specific customer pain point, not a generic audience → Framework labels so you know which hook type you're testing → A reusable skill — run it for every new product, every new campaign, every new angle sprint → Works from a product brief — no API connection, no CSV export, no setup beyond installing the skill One product brief. 20 hooks. 60 seconds. I put together the full skill file plus a playbook showing how to install it, customize the frameworks, and run your first hook sprint. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "HOOKS" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

17,026 views • 5 months ago

after consistently booking 100 b2b calls/mo from linkedin inbound funnels... i sat down with Lara Acosta and gave away our ENTIRE playbook in a 1-hour interview → every system → every framework → every DM script for context, a post with 40 comments booked me 4 qualified calls last week a single question in the DMs booked a client 72 calls in 26 days and one lead magnet batch generated 7,000 comments across 4 variations in this interview i break down exactly how all of it works... here's what's inside: → why i think content pillars are dead and what replaced them (awareness stage positioning: problem unaware, pain aware, solution aware) → the lead magnet system we run at 100 per week across all client accounts (what makes a good one, why 50 pages of text is a waste, and why the best lead magnets right now are all Claude/AI related) → the DM conversion framework that turns a free resource into a booked call in 3-5 messages ("hey, what caught your attention?" → discover the pain → drop a case study → assume the yes with a specific date and time) → why engagement doesn't equal revenue and what actually does (30k followers with low engagement booking 10x more calls than before because the conversion infrastructure changed) → the trend jacking strategy that makes dead accounts go viral overnight (spot it on X in the morning, build the resource by noon, post on linkedin by evening) → how to get your first case study using pay-for-results instead of free trials → the competitor analysis shortcut for never running out of content ideas → why the linkedin algorithm conversation is 90% excuse and 10% useful like + comment "POD" and i'll send you the full interview (must be following + RT for priority access)

after consistently booking 100 b2b calls/mo from linkedin inbound funnels... i sat down with Lara Acosta and gave away our ENTIRE playbook in a 1-hour interview → every system → every framework → every DM script for context, a post with 40 comments booked me 4 qualified calls last week a single question in the DMs booked a client 72 calls in 26 days and one lead magnet batch generated 7,000 comments across 4 variations in this interview i break down exactly how all of it works... here's what's inside: → why i think content pillars are dead and what replaced them (awareness stage positioning: problem unaware, pain aware, solution aware) → the lead magnet system we run at 100 per week across all client accounts (what makes a good one, why 50 pages of text is a waste, and why the best lead magnets right now are all Claude/AI related) → the DM conversion framework that turns a free resource into a booked call in 3-5 messages ("hey, what caught your attention?" → discover the pain → drop a case study → assume the yes with a specific date and time) → why engagement doesn't equal revenue and what actually does (30k followers with low engagement booking 10x more calls than before because the conversion infrastructure changed) → the trend jacking strategy that makes dead accounts go viral overnight (spot it on X in the morning, build the resource by noon, post on linkedin by evening) → how to get your first case study using pay-for-results instead of free trials → the competitor analysis shortcut for never running out of content ideas → why the linkedin algorithm conversation is 90% excuse and 10% useful like + comment "POD" and i'll send you the full interview (must be following + RT for priority access)

paolo trivellato

23,313 views • 3 months ago

sorry, they just did WHAT someone gave a machine one disease name, the leading cause of blindness in the developed world with 1.5 million americans already in its path, and it came back pointing at a drug that has sat in pharmacies for years under a different label: 551 papers read in 30 minutes against the 294 hours a human would have needed, and the loop that did it is public on GitHub most agent setups answer one question at a time, so the ceiling on the work is the quality of the question you happened to think of this one was handed a single question and wrote the second one itself. turns out that follow-up is where the real find was: a target called ABCA1, upregulated threefold, in an experiment no human ordered i read the whole paper looking for the trick, and the trick is structural. that is the second question, and it is the gap between an assistant and a factory: - hand the loop a field rather than a task: it was given a disease, and choosing the mechanism was part of its job - make it rank before it spends: 151 papers in, ten candidate mechanisms out, scored against each other before anything touched a bench - split reading from judging, so the agent that forms the theory is a different agent from the one grading it - close every cycle on physical reality: the verdict was an experiment, and another model's opinion was never allowed to stand in for one - feed each result back as the next question rather than a log line, which is the step almost nobody builds - search what already passed inspection first: the winner was an approved compound with a safety file already on record - write down what the round learned before opening the next one, so round two starts where round one stopped my read, and i think it is the uncomfortable one: reading was the entire bottleneck in that field, and everybody spent the decade optimising the writing. people ran every physical experiment here, the analysis agent needs a domain expert writing its prompts, and the authors decline to call this the leap it resembles. the thinking got replaced, and the hands did not so the question i cannot answer for my own setup: which step of your loop still stops dead until you sit down and type something bookmark this one. the four parts that turn one model into a line that runs like this, the queue, the rooms, the write permissions and the gate, are built file by file in the piece below ↓

sorry, they just did WHAT someone gave a machine one disease name, the leading cause of blindness in the developed world with 1.5 million americans already in its path, and it came back pointing at a drug that has sat in pharmacies for years under a different label: 551 papers read in 30 minutes against the 294 hours a human would have needed, and the loop that did it is public on GitHub most agent setups answer one question at a time, so the ceiling on the work is the quality of the question you happened to think of this one was handed a single question and wrote the second one itself. turns out that follow-up is where the real find was: a target called ABCA1, upregulated threefold, in an experiment no human ordered i read the whole paper looking for the trick, and the trick is structural. that is the second question, and it is the gap between an assistant and a factory: - hand the loop a field rather than a task: it was given a disease, and choosing the mechanism was part of its job - make it rank before it spends: 151 papers in, ten candidate mechanisms out, scored against each other before anything touched a bench - split reading from judging, so the agent that forms the theory is a different agent from the one grading it - close every cycle on physical reality: the verdict was an experiment, and another model's opinion was never allowed to stand in for one - feed each result back as the next question rather than a log line, which is the step almost nobody builds - search what already passed inspection first: the winner was an approved compound with a safety file already on record - write down what the round learned before opening the next one, so round two starts where round one stopped my read, and i think it is the uncomfortable one: reading was the entire bottleneck in that field, and everybody spent the decade optimising the writing. people ran every physical experiment here, the analysis agent needs a domain expert writing its prompts, and the authors decline to call this the leap it resembles. the thinking got replaced, and the hands did not so the question i cannot answer for my own setup: which step of your loop still stops dead until you sit down and type something bookmark this one. the four parts that turn one model into a line that runs like this, the queue, the rooms, the write permissions and the gate, are built file by file in the piece below ↓

Argona

32,475 views • 1 month ago

i just open sourced the workflow behind $2M AI video productions... i built 7 skills that run the pipeline end to end, built for Seedance 2.5 and they work in Claude Code, Codex, Hermes or any harness (works best with 1080p using Higgsfield CLI) here's how to use them, in order: /setup writes which image and video models you run into your project, once, so every skill reads the same stack /studio-init scaffolds the whole studio as a file tree from one question, the project name /film-breakdown walks your script scene by scene and writes a 22-field card for every shot /reference-board locks your references into a visual bible, a caption on every image and a ban list for the rest /asset-passport writes the exhaustive descriptor every later prompt will quote word for word /stress-test combat-tests each asset and flips it to locked only at 10 out of 10 repeatability /shot-prompt refuses to run until everything in frame is locked, then writes the 15-block prompt and logs every attempt get access to the skills and full breakdown of the pipeline in the article below:

i just open sourced the workflow behind $2M AI video productions... i built 7 skills that run the pipeline end to end, built for Seedance 2.5 and they work in Claude Code, Codex, Hermes or any harness (works best with 1080p using Higgsfield CLI) here's how to use them, in order: /setup writes which image and video models you run into your project, once, so every skill reads the same stack /studio-init scaffolds the whole studio as a file tree from one question, the project name /film-breakdown walks your script scene by scene and writes a 22-field card for every shot /reference-board locks your references into a visual bible, a caption on every image and a ban list for the rest /asset-passport writes the exhaustive descriptor every later prompt will quote word for word /stress-test combat-tests each asset and flips it to locked only at 10 out of 10 repeatability /shot-prompt refuses to run until everything in frame is locked, then writes the 15-block prompt and logs every attempt get access to the skills and full breakdown of the pipeline in the article below:

Machina

61,554 views • 1 month ago

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense someone gave a fleet of Claude agents shared memory so they would stop contradicting each other, then measured both the bill and the output: the version that talked most made 2.4x the api calls of the version that won, and hallucinated 34% more than doing nothing at all, 0.658 against 0.492 i ran the same question past two of my own agents afterwards and got two different answers about which file owns the config. each one was individually right and the pair was wrong, which is the whole failure in one line this is Graph Engineering, the layer that decides which agents may talk to each other at all, and it installs into the agent you already pay for: - decide which agents may share state at all, because every edge you draw is a channel a mistake can travel down - measure divergence per PAIR instead of as a fleet average, across what they believe about place, time and task history - gate on that number and stop the pair above your threshold before it reasons, rather than repairing the output afterwards - let compressed summaries replace whole states: the verified protocol landed 0.463 against 0.658 for full broadcast - cut the sync frequency until it hurts, since the winning setup used 58% fewer calls than the one that broke it - never propagate a state nobody checked, because the contamination effect came in at d=1.18, a full standard deviation of extra lying - keep the shared layer small enough to diff, which is what a written standard does and a running conversation cannot - re-run the check after every model upgrade, because this was 8 scenarios on one model family at n=30 per condition - and learn where it does not bite: on plain software tasks every condition converged under 0.2 and the whole effect vanished turns out the ranking is the uncomfortable part: verified summaries 0.463, no synchronisation at all 0.492, full broadcast 0.658. the middle option is doing nothing, and it beat the thing everyone builds first the group agreeing is what it looks like when every agent copied the same mistake, which is why a fleet that hallucinates has a replication problem and keeps getting handed a smarter model instead so the question for your own setup: if you asked two of your agents the same thing right now, would they answer the same way bookmark this one. the layer underneath it, deciding which arrows between agents exist at all, is built step by step in the piece below ↓

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense someone gave a fleet of Claude agents shared memory so they would stop contradicting each other, then measured both the bill and the output: the version that talked most made 2.4x the api calls of the version that won, and hallucinated 34% more than doing nothing at all, 0.658 against 0.492 i ran the same question past two of my own agents afterwards and got two different answers about which file owns the config. each one was individually right and the pair was wrong, which is the whole failure in one line this is Graph Engineering, the layer that decides which agents may talk to each other at all, and it installs into the agent you already pay for: - decide which agents may share state at all, because every edge you draw is a channel a mistake can travel down - measure divergence per PAIR instead of as a fleet average, across what they believe about place, time and task history - gate on that number and stop the pair above your threshold before it reasons, rather than repairing the output afterwards - let compressed summaries replace whole states: the verified protocol landed 0.463 against 0.658 for full broadcast - cut the sync frequency until it hurts, since the winning setup used 58% fewer calls than the one that broke it - never propagate a state nobody checked, because the contamination effect came in at d=1.18, a full standard deviation of extra lying - keep the shared layer small enough to diff, which is what a written standard does and a running conversation cannot - re-run the check after every model upgrade, because this was 8 scenarios on one model family at n=30 per condition - and learn where it does not bite: on plain software tasks every condition converged under 0.2 and the whole effect vanished turns out the ranking is the uncomfortable part: verified summaries 0.463, no synchronisation at all 0.492, full broadcast 0.658. the middle option is doing nothing, and it beat the thing everyone builds first the group agreeing is what it looks like when every agent copied the same mistake, which is why a fleet that hallucinates has a replication problem and keeps getting handed a smarter model instead so the question for your own setup: if you asked two of your agents the same thing right now, would they answer the same way bookmark this one. the layer underneath it, deciding which arrows between agents exist at all, is built step by step in the piece below ↓

Argona

724,665 views • 1 month ago

Transformer by hand ✍️ ~ 6 steps walkthrough below Open the hood of a transformer and the parts list is overwhelming: embeddings, positional encoding, attention weighting, self-attention, cross-attention, multi-head attention, layer norm, skip connections, softmax, linear, Nx, shifted right, query, key, value, masking. Which of those actually make the car run? Two of them. Attention weighting and the feed-forward network. Everything else is an enhancement to make it run faster and longer, which is how we got from a car to a truck, and to the word "large" in large language model. So I drew and calculated those two parts entirely by hand. Goal: push five features through one transformer block, filling in every cell yourself. 1. Given Five positions of input features, arriving from the previous block. 2. Attention matrix Let us feed all five features to a query-key module (QK) and read back an attention weight matrix, A. The details of that module are a post of their own. 3. Attention weighting We multiply the input features by A to get the attention weighted features, Z. Still five positions. The effect is to combine features *across positions*, horizontally: X1 becomes X1 + X2, X2 becomes X2 + X3, and so on. 4. First layer Let us feed all five weighted features into the first layer of the FFN. Multiply by the weights and biases. This time the combining happens *across feature dimensions*, vertically, and each feature grows from 3 numbers to 4. Note that every position goes through the same weight matrix. That is what "position-wise" means. 5. ReLU We cross out the negatives. They become zeros. 6. Second layer Let us bring it back down: 4 dimensions to 3. The output feeds the next block, which has a completely separate set of parameters, and the whole thing runs again. You have just calculated a transformer block by hand. ✍️ The takeaway: the two parts are doing two different jobs, and neither one alone is enough. Attention mixes *across positions*, so a feature can see its neighbours. The FFN mixes *across feature dimensions*, so each position can think about itself. Horizontal, then vertical. Then that pattern repeats N times, each block with its own separate set of weights. That is the Nx from the list up top, and that is what makes the transformer run. 💾 Save this post! #AIbyHand #Transformers #DeepLearning

Transformer by hand ✍️ ~ 6 steps walkthrough below Open the hood of a transformer and the parts list is overwhelming: embeddings, positional encoding, attention weighting, self-attention, cross-attention, multi-head attention, layer norm, skip connections, softmax, linear, Nx, shifted right, query, key, value, masking. Which of those actually make the car run? Two of them. Attention weighting and the feed-forward network. Everything else is an enhancement to make it run faster and longer, which is how we got from a car to a truck, and to the word "large" in large language model. So I drew and calculated those two parts entirely by hand. Goal: push five features through one transformer block, filling in every cell yourself. 1. Given Five positions of input features, arriving from the previous block. 2. Attention matrix Let us feed all five features to a query-key module (QK) and read back an attention weight matrix, A. The details of that module are a post of their own. 3. Attention weighting We multiply the input features by A to get the attention weighted features, Z. Still five positions. The effect is to combine features across positions, horizontally: X1 becomes X1 + X2, X2 becomes X2 + X3, and so on. 4. First layer Let us feed all five weighted features into the first layer of the FFN. Multiply by the weights and biases. This time the combining happens across feature dimensions, vertically, and each feature grows from 3 numbers to 4. Note that every position goes through the same weight matrix. That is what "position-wise" means. 5. ReLU We cross out the negatives. They become zeros. 6. Second layer Let us bring it back down: 4 dimensions to 3. The output feeds the next block, which has a completely separate set of parameters, and the whole thing runs again. You have just calculated a transformer block by hand. ✍️ The takeaway: the two parts are doing two different jobs, and neither one alone is enough. Attention mixes across positions, so a feature can see its neighbours. The FFN mixes across feature dimensions, so each position can think about itself. Horizontal, then vertical. Then that pattern repeats N times, each block with its own separate set of weights. That is the Nx from the list up top, and that is what makes the transformer run. 💾 Save this post! #AIbyHand #Transformers #DeepLearning

Tom Yeh

26,089 views • 2 months ago

🚨TikTok spends $2,000,000,000 a year on the algorithm that predicts what goes viral before you see it. a 19-year-old built his own version for $50 a month and made $11,900 from it last month. he tracks 40 channels in one Google Sheet, scores every outlier against the channel's own median, and feeds the top patterns to Claude. > Claude extracts the format and writes the shot list: 20 minutes > CapCut builds the vertical: 40 minutes > Make publishes to every platform and logs the result: automatic $50/month in tools. 4 hours to set up. runs every day since. most channels post first and hope. he checks what already won, then points it at a new subject. full breakdown of the scoring method below.

🚨TikTok spends $2,000,000,000 a year on the algorithm that predicts what goes viral before you see it. a 19-year-old built his own version for $50 a month and made $11,900 from it last month. he tracks 40 channels in one Google Sheet, scores every outlier against the channel's own median, and feeds the top patterns to Claude. > Claude extracts the format and writes the shot list: 20 minutes > CapCut builds the vertical: 40 minutes > Make publishes to every platform and logs the result: automatic $50/month in tools. 4 hours to set up. runs every day since. most channels post first and hope. he checks what already won, then points it at a new subject. full breakdown of the scoring method below.

Mura

91,527 views • 2 months ago

I just built a Claude Code skill that scores whether your landing page actually keeps your Meta ad's promise 🤯 Drop in your ad and the page it points to. It reads both, scores the "ad scent" from click to page, and finds the exact line where the page breaks the promise that won the click. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and media buyers who pour everything into the ad and the CPA but never grade the seam in between. If you're scaling spend on a winning ad, the click is landing on a page that opens with something slightly different, the ad promised 50% off and the page shows full price, the ad hooked "for oily skin" and the page is a generic homepage, and nothing looks broken, but the visitor feels it and bounces... That gap has a name in conversion work: message match. And you already paid for the click you're losing. Here's what it does: → Drop in your ad (headline, copy, offer, CTA) and the landing-page URL → It fetches the live page and reads what's actually above the fold → Grades 7 continuity dimensions: promise, offer, angle, CTA, audience, proof, visual → Shows your ad's words next to your page's words, so every gap is right there → Rewrites your hero headline so the page keeps the ad's promise → Renders a dashboard with a Match Score out of 100 No guessing why the click bounced. No blaming the creative for a page problem. No buying more traffic to fix a copy problem. What you get: → A Match Score on every ad-to-page pair before you scale → The ad-side vs page-side quotes, side by side, for every leak → A hero rewrite you can paste straight onto the page → A dashboard you can hand to your team or client I'm giving away the full skill completely for free. Built 100% in Claude Code. No API keys. Want the skill? > Like this post > Comment "MATCH" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

I just built a Claude Code skill that scores whether your landing page actually keeps your Meta ad's promise 🤯 Drop in your ad and the page it points to. It reads both, scores the "ad scent" from click to page, and finds the exact line where the page breaks the promise that won the click. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and media buyers who pour everything into the ad and the CPA but never grade the seam in between. If you're scaling spend on a winning ad, the click is landing on a page that opens with something slightly different, the ad promised 50% off and the page shows full price, the ad hooked "for oily skin" and the page is a generic homepage, and nothing looks broken, but the visitor feels it and bounces... That gap has a name in conversion work: message match. And you already paid for the click you're losing. Here's what it does: → Drop in your ad (headline, copy, offer, CTA) and the landing-page URL → It fetches the live page and reads what's actually above the fold → Grades 7 continuity dimensions: promise, offer, angle, CTA, audience, proof, visual → Shows your ad's words next to your page's words, so every gap is right there → Rewrites your hero headline so the page keeps the ad's promise → Renders a dashboard with a Match Score out of 100 No guessing why the click bounced. No blaming the creative for a page problem. No buying more traffic to fix a copy problem. What you get: → A Match Score on every ad-to-page pair before you scale → The ad-side vs page-side quotes, side by side, for every leak → A hero rewrite you can paste straight onto the page → A dashboard you can hand to your team or client I'm giving away the full skill completely for free. Built 100% in Claude Code. No API keys. Want the skill? > Like this post > Comment "MATCH" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

10,862 views • 2 months ago

I just built a Meta ad policy checker in Claude Code that catches rejections BEFORE Meta does 🤯 Drop in your ad copy → it pulls Meta's LIVE Advertising Standards, checks every line against the actual policy text, and hands each ad a verdict: Cleared for launch, Fix before launch, or Grounded. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for media buyers and DTC brands who've had ads bounced — or an account restricted — and never got a straight answer why. If you're finding out about policy problems only after the rejection email, resubmitting the same ad and praying, losing days of delivery while the appeal sits in review, and every bounce quietly teaches Meta to trust your account a little less... This runs the review before Meta ever sees the ad: → Drop in your ad copy (one ad or a whole batch) → It reads each ad and figures out which of Meta's policies apply → Scrapes the live policy pages from Meta's Transparency Center → Flags the exact phrase that violates, with Meta's own policy quoted next to it → Rewrites the risky lines so the message survives but the violation doesn't → Renders a dashboard: every ad, every finding, every fix in one place No guessing which word killed the ad. No resubmit-and-pray loops. No stacking rejections on your account history. What you get: → A verdict on every ad before you spend a dollar → The violating phrase + the policy citation, side by side → Rewrites that keep the selling intent → A report you can hand straight to your team or client Built 100% in Claude Code. No API keys, no Meta login. I'm giving away the complete Claude skill file. Want the skill for free? > Like this post > Comment "META" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

I just built a Meta ad policy checker in Claude Code that catches rejections BEFORE Meta does 🤯 Drop in your ad copy → it pulls Meta's LIVE Advertising Standards, checks every line against the actual policy text, and hands each ad a verdict: Cleared for launch, Fix before launch, or Grounded. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for media buyers and DTC brands who've had ads bounced — or an account restricted — and never got a straight answer why. If you're finding out about policy problems only after the rejection email, resubmitting the same ad and praying, losing days of delivery while the appeal sits in review, and every bounce quietly teaches Meta to trust your account a little less... This runs the review before Meta ever sees the ad: → Drop in your ad copy (one ad or a whole batch) → It reads each ad and figures out which of Meta's policies apply → Scrapes the live policy pages from Meta's Transparency Center → Flags the exact phrase that violates, with Meta's own policy quoted next to it → Rewrites the risky lines so the message survives but the violation doesn't → Renders a dashboard: every ad, every finding, every fix in one place No guessing which word killed the ad. No resubmit-and-pray loops. No stacking rejections on your account history. What you get: → A verdict on every ad before you spend a dollar → The violating phrase + the policy citation, side by side → Rewrites that keep the selling intent → A report you can hand straight to your team or client Built 100% in Claude Code. No API keys, no Meta login. I'm giving away the complete Claude skill file. Want the skill for free? > Like this post > Comment "META" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

17,526 views • 2 months ago

THIS GUY GOT SICK OF UK TRAIN STATIONS HIDING THE PLATFORM NUMBER UNTIL THE LAST SECOND, SO HE VIBE CODED AN APP THAT PREDICTS IT BEFORE THEY REVEAL IT if youve ever stood in a crowded station like london euston, you know the pain the platform stays hidden until 15 minutes before boarding, then it flashes up and hundreds of people sprint for the same gate so he built something that fixes this: > a clean departures and arrivals app pulling live data straight from the network rail apis > live train tracking so you can watch where your train actually is on the route and whether its running on time > the main feature is a predictive engine that guesses your platform before the station reveals it, and its right about 75% of the time heres how it predicts: every time a train finishes its journey, it logs which platform it actually pulled into and compares that to the platform network rail originally advertised it saves every one of those comparisons, and over time it builds up enough history to predict the platform with a real confidence score he built the whole thing with claude, mostly opus with some fable

THIS GUY GOT SICK OF UK TRAIN STATIONS HIDING THE PLATFORM NUMBER UNTIL THE LAST SECOND, SO HE VIBE CODED AN APP THAT PREDICTS IT BEFORE THEY REVEAL IT if youve ever stood in a crowded station like london euston, you know the pain the platform stays hidden until 15 minutes before boarding, then it flashes up and hundreds of people sprint for the same gate so he built something that fixes this: > a clean departures and arrivals app pulling live data straight from the network rail apis > live train tracking so you can watch where your train actually is on the route and whether its running on time > the main feature is a predictive engine that guesses your platform before the station reveals it, and its right about 75% of the time heres how it predicts: every time a train finishes its journey, it logs which platform it actually pulled into and compares that to the platform network rail originally advertised it saves every one of those comparisons, and over time it builds up enough history to predict the platform with a real confidence score he built the whole thing with claude, mostly opus with some fable

Om Patel

176,154 views • 2 months ago

this is more useful than my entire degree Elon Musk's rocket company signed a $60,000,000,000 deal for Cursor in June, and eight days ago the two of them put a worker on sale for $200 a month: it gets its own computer in the cloud, signs into your accounts, clicks through your real apps, and hands back finished work instead of a draft for you to paste i ran one against my receipts folder on sunday and got back 14 filed, 2 it held because they needed a card number, and a saved method i never wrote myself Grok Bot is the one you train by doing your own job in front of it, and the whole handover fits in four messages tonight: 1. write out one job you did today the way you would brief a new hire: what has to be finished, which sites and files to work from, what to hand back, and where it stops and asks you 2. let it run once on something safe to get wrong, then correct the result until it is worth your name 3. say "save what we just did as a skill", and add the one rule about what always needs your approval 4. say "run that skill every weekday at 8 and post the result here. if the source is missing, tell me instead of using yesterday's numbers" xAI wrote that order into its own manual: one real job, then the saved method, then the clock. a schedule sitting on top of a method nobody checked replaces two hours of your clicking with two hours of your mistake turns out you never get to pick the brain, and that is the part i would argue about: the manual says there is no model picker for members or admins, no plan to add one, and the bill follows whichever model answered bookmark this, then open the piece below: which jobs deserve a worker of their own, and which ones quietly burn the seat ↓

this is more useful than my entire degree Elon Musk's rocket company signed a $60,000,000,000 deal for Cursor in June, and eight days ago the two of them put a worker on sale for $200 a month: it gets its own computer in the cloud, signs into your accounts, clicks through your real apps, and hands back finished work instead of a draft for you to paste i ran one against my receipts folder on sunday and got back 14 filed, 2 it held because they needed a card number, and a saved method i never wrote myself Grok Bot is the one you train by doing your own job in front of it, and the whole handover fits in four messages tonight: 1. write out one job you did today the way you would brief a new hire: what has to be finished, which sites and files to work from, what to hand back, and where it stops and asks you 2. let it run once on something safe to get wrong, then correct the result until it is worth your name 3. say "save what we just did as a skill", and add the one rule about what always needs your approval 4. say "run that skill every weekday at 8 and post the result here. if the source is missing, tell me instead of using yesterday's numbers" xAI wrote that order into its own manual: one real job, then the saved method, then the clock. a schedule sitting on top of a method nobody checked replaces two hours of your clicking with two hours of your mistake turns out you never get to pick the brain, and that is the part i would argue about: the manual says there is no model picker for members or admins, no plan to add one, and the bill follows whichever model answered bookmark this, then open the piece below: which jobs deserve a worker of their own, and which ones quietly burn the seat ↓

Argona

21,946 views • 1 month ago

this is worth more than most five figure courses 16 claude agents audit an entire repo at once, a second fleet re-checks every finding on fresh context, and the whole thing runs off one diagram instead of a prompt i ran it against my own code and got back 11 endpoints where i never checked who was logged in, 3 of which the verifier threw out before they ever reached me this is Graph Engineering, the layer above prompting, and it runs on the agent you already pay for: - write your plan out, then ask one question at every "and then": does the next step actually read what the previous one produced - the seams that fail that question were never dependencies, so those jobs run at the same time - the arrows that survive are your real edges, and the longest chain of them is your floor that no number of agents shortens - want it faster, cut a false edge instead of adding a worker - fan the independent work out, one agent per item, no shared state between them - send every finding to a separate agent on fresh context, because a model recognises its own writing 73.5% of the time and grades it kinder once it does - make that verifier check a real signal like a passing test, never the worker's own word that it finished - shard the fleet across worktrees so parallel workers stop overwriting each other, one rule frozen into every worker: never git stash, never git reset - merge only what came back verified, into one report instead of twenty open chats the catch is the ceiling. at 95% independent work 16 agents return 9.14x rather than the 16 you would guess, and even 256 only reach 18.6x, because the merge and the verify stay serial however wide you fan coordination itself is free plain code and every agent underneath it is billed, so start at twenty files and widen once it works bookmark this, the whole method with all six ready-to-run graphs is written out in the article ↓

this is worth more than most five figure courses 16 claude agents audit an entire repo at once, a second fleet re-checks every finding on fresh context, and the whole thing runs off one diagram instead of a prompt i ran it against my own code and got back 11 endpoints where i never checked who was logged in, 3 of which the verifier threw out before they ever reached me this is Graph Engineering, the layer above prompting, and it runs on the agent you already pay for: - write your plan out, then ask one question at every "and then": does the next step actually read what the previous one produced - the seams that fail that question were never dependencies, so those jobs run at the same time - the arrows that survive are your real edges, and the longest chain of them is your floor that no number of agents shortens - want it faster, cut a false edge instead of adding a worker - fan the independent work out, one agent per item, no shared state between them - send every finding to a separate agent on fresh context, because a model recognises its own writing 73.5% of the time and grades it kinder once it does - make that verifier check a real signal like a passing test, never the worker's own word that it finished - shard the fleet across worktrees so parallel workers stop overwriting each other, one rule frozen into every worker: never git stash, never git reset - merge only what came back verified, into one report instead of twenty open chats the catch is the ceiling. at 95% independent work 16 agents return 9.14x rather than the 16 you would guess, and even 256 only reach 18.6x, because the merge and the verify stay serial however wide you fan coordination itself is free plain code and every agent underneath it is billed, so start at twenty files and widen once it works bookmark this, the whole method with all six ready-to-run graphs is written out in the article ↓

Argona

157,312 views • 2 months ago

this ad is 100% ai balloon art style under $2 in compute 10 minutes start to finish and the workflow is dumber than you think script it with the right claude skill (not the generic slop) generate every scene's first frame feed those into omni or kling stitch in capcut thats the whole thing the crazy part you can automate almost all of it with claude code everyone in supplements is running the same girl-talking-to-camera ad meanwhile your brain has never seen a probiotic sold by a balloon the format is the pattern interrupt

this ad is 100% ai balloon art style under $2 in compute 10 minutes start to finish and the workflow is dumber than you think script it with the right claude skill (not the generic slop) generate every scene's first frame feed those into omni or kling stitch in capcut thats the whole thing the crazy part you can automate almost all of it with claude code everyone in supplements is running the same girl-talking-to-camera ad meanwhile your brain has never seen a probiotic sold by a balloon the format is the pattern interrupt

jason

52,120 views • 2 months ago

A 22-YEAR-OLD IN CHINA SOLD HER VIRAL AI REELS TO 6 LOCAL BUSINESSES AND CLEARED $11,900 LAST MONTH She never filmed a thing. She tracked 40 faceless channels in one sheet and scored every clip that beat its own channel. One line ran the sort: views over the channel's median. Anything past 30 was a format she could reskin that week. The AI-video look was blowing up on Douyin, so she took the shape and ran it in english first. For $50 a month in apps she found the format on Monday and shipped by Wednesday. Claude prompted each format into 30 shot lists. CapCut generated the whole clip, a photoreal AI girl in a full scene, with AI voice and captions. Make posted to 3 platforms and fed the numbers back into the same sheet, so her own hits fed the next batch. She walked into a boutique with a phone and a page of outlier scores. She left with a retainer for 20 AI videos a month. A studio needs a model, a crew, and a shoot day for one clip. She generated hers overnight. Every prompt and the scenario are in the article.

A 22-YEAR-OLD IN CHINA SOLD HER VIRAL AI REELS TO 6 LOCAL BUSINESSES AND CLEARED $11,900 LAST MONTH She never filmed a thing. She tracked 40 faceless channels in one sheet and scored every clip that beat its own channel. One line ran the sort: views over the channel's median. Anything past 30 was a format she could reskin that week. The AI-video look was blowing up on Douyin, so she took the shape and ran it in english first. For $50 a month in apps she found the format on Monday and shipped by Wednesday. Claude prompted each format into 30 shot lists. CapCut generated the whole clip, a photoreal AI girl in a full scene, with AI voice and captions. Make posted to 3 platforms and fed the numbers back into the same sheet, so her own hits fed the next batch. She walked into a boutique with a phone and a page of outlier scores. She left with a retainer for 20 AI videos a month. A studio needs a model, a crew, and a shoot day for one clip. She generated hers overnight. Every prompt and the scenario are in the article.

Fokki

82,974 views • 2 months ago

I just built a Meta Ads diagnostic in Claude Code that tells you WHY your account broke, not just what changed 🤯 It spins up a team of agents that each investigate a different reason performance dropped, then argue against each other to kill the wrong answer before it ever reaches you. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who panic-kill creative the second CPA spikes. If you've watched ROAS fall off a cliff and opened Ads Manager with ten tabs going, you already know what happens next. Your gut says "creative fatigue." You kill your best-performing ad. A week later performance is still broken, because that was never the problem. Guessing wrong is the most expensive move in paid social. This workflow ends the guessing: → One agent investigates each competing theory — creative fatigue, budget and delivery changes, traffic quality, offer and seasonality → Each one is blind to the others, reasoning only from its own slice of the data so they can't bias each other → A refuter agent then attacks every surviving theory and tries to kill it → A theory only stands if the data can't disprove it → You get a ranked diagnosis: the real cause, the evidence for and against it, and the one move to make this week No anchoring on the first obvious answer. No killing winning creative on a hunch. No "here's what happened" reports that never tell you why. What you get: → Every theory tested in parallel instead of one biased guess → An adversarial pass that kills the wrong answer before you act on it → A ranked diagnosis with confidence levels and evidence both ways → A reusable workflow you drop next month's export into and re-run Built 100% in Claude Code with the new dynamic workflows. The first account I ran it on looked like textbook creative fatigue. The workflow disagreed, and traced the real cause to a budget change that had doubled spend and flooded delivery with junk traffic. I put together a full playbook with the exact workflow, the prompt, and how to run it on your own account. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "META" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

I just built a Meta Ads diagnostic in Claude Code that tells you WHY your account broke, not just what changed 🤯 It spins up a team of agents that each investigate a different reason performance dropped, then argue against each other to kill the wrong answer before it ever reaches you. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who panic-kill creative the second CPA spikes. If you've watched ROAS fall off a cliff and opened Ads Manager with ten tabs going, you already know what happens next. Your gut says "creative fatigue." You kill your best-performing ad. A week later performance is still broken, because that was never the problem. Guessing wrong is the most expensive move in paid social. This workflow ends the guessing: → One agent investigates each competing theory — creative fatigue, budget and delivery changes, traffic quality, offer and seasonality → Each one is blind to the others, reasoning only from its own slice of the data so they can't bias each other → A refuter agent then attacks every surviving theory and tries to kill it → A theory only stands if the data can't disprove it → You get a ranked diagnosis: the real cause, the evidence for and against it, and the one move to make this week No anchoring on the first obvious answer. No killing winning creative on a hunch. No "here's what happened" reports that never tell you why. What you get: → Every theory tested in parallel instead of one biased guess → An adversarial pass that kills the wrong answer before you act on it → A ranked diagnosis with confidence levels and evidence both ways → A reusable workflow you drop next month's export into and re-run Built 100% in Claude Code with the new dynamic workflows. The first account I ran it on looked like textbook creative fatigue. The workflow disagreed, and traced the real cause to a budget change that had doubled spend and flooded delivery with junk traffic. I put together a full playbook with the exact workflow, the prompt, and how to run it on your own account. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "META" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

12,868 views • 3 months ago

I just built a Claude Code skill that scores whether your landing page actually keeps your ad's promise 🤯 Drop in your ad and the page it points to. It reads both, scores the "ad scent" from click to page, and finds the exact line where the page breaks the promise that won the click. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and media buyers who pour everything into the ad and the CPA but never grade the seam in between. If you're scaling spend on a winning ad, the click is landing on a page that opens with something slightly different, the ad promised 50% off and the page shows full price, the ad hooked "for oily skin" and the page is a generic homepage, and nothing looks broken, but the visitor feels it and bounces... That gap has a name in conversion work: message match. And you already paid for the click you're losing. Here's what it does: → Drop in your ad (headline, copy, offer, CTA) and the landing-page URL → It fetches the live page and reads what's actually above the fold → Grades 7 continuity dimensions: promise, offer, angle, CTA, audience, proof, visual → Shows your ad's words next to your page's words, so every gap is right there → Rewrites your hero headline so the page keeps the ad's promise → Renders a dashboard with a Match Score out of 100 No guessing why the click bounced. No blaming the creative for a page problem. No buying more traffic to fix a copy problem. What you get: → A Match Score on every ad-to-page pair before you scale → The ad-side vs page-side quotes, side by side, for every leak → A hero rewrite you can paste straight onto the page → A dashboard you can hand to your team or client The honest part: message match is one lever on conversion, not the whole funnel. But it's the cheapest one to fix. You're not buying more clicks. You're keeping the clicks you already bought. Built 100% in Claude Code. No API keys. Want the skill? > Like this post > Comment "MATCH" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

I just built a Claude Code skill that scores whether your landing page actually keeps your ad's promise 🤯 Drop in your ad and the page it points to. It reads both, scores the "ad scent" from click to page, and finds the exact line where the page breaks the promise that won the click. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and media buyers who pour everything into the ad and the CPA but never grade the seam in between. If you're scaling spend on a winning ad, the click is landing on a page that opens with something slightly different, the ad promised 50% off and the page shows full price, the ad hooked "for oily skin" and the page is a generic homepage, and nothing looks broken, but the visitor feels it and bounces... That gap has a name in conversion work: message match. And you already paid for the click you're losing. Here's what it does: → Drop in your ad (headline, copy, offer, CTA) and the landing-page URL → It fetches the live page and reads what's actually above the fold → Grades 7 continuity dimensions: promise, offer, angle, CTA, audience, proof, visual → Shows your ad's words next to your page's words, so every gap is right there → Rewrites your hero headline so the page keeps the ad's promise → Renders a dashboard with a Match Score out of 100 No guessing why the click bounced. No blaming the creative for a page problem. No buying more traffic to fix a copy problem. What you get: → A Match Score on every ad-to-page pair before you scale → The ad-side vs page-side quotes, side by side, for every leak → A hero rewrite you can paste straight onto the page → A dashboard you can hand to your team or client The honest part: message match is one lever on conversion, not the whole funnel. But it's the cheapest one to fix. You're not buying more clicks. You're keeping the clicks you already bought. Built 100% in Claude Code. No API keys. Want the skill? > Like this post > Comment "MATCH" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

10,242 views • 2 months ago

One of the most unfair things about investing: The best information in private markets never reaches regular investors I'm the GP of a public venture fund by AngelList Every week I see hundreds of deals, the actual prices secondaries trade at, and which "hot" companies smart investors are quietly passing on Almost none of this information ever leaves the industry So my team and I put everything into a 17+ page report on private markets in 2026 Here's what's inside: - What the SpaceX, OpenAI & Anthropic IPOs could mean for venture - The 5 ways private shares actually trade (and the fees nobody discloses) - The tax break that lets startup investors exclude $15M in gains - A framework for avoiding the mistakes that sink most first-time venture portfolios We're releasing it publicly next week, but I want to send it to a few people first for feedback. To get it: 1. Like this post 2. Comment "ACCESS" And I'll DM it over (make sure you're following me so I can) Disclosure: This content is for educational purposes only, not investment advice, and not an offer of any securities

One of the most unfair things about investing: The best information in private markets never reaches regular investors I'm the GP of a public venture fund by AngelList Every week I see hundreds of deals, the actual prices secondaries trade at, and which "hot" companies smart investors are quietly passing on Almost none of this information ever leaves the industry So my team and I put everything into a 17+ page report on private markets in 2026 Here's what's inside: - What the SpaceX, OpenAI & Anthropic IPOs could mean for venture - The 5 ways private shares actually trade (and the fees nobody discloses) - The tax break that lets startup investors exclude $15M in gains - A framework for avoiding the mistakes that sink most first-time venture portfolios We're releasing it publicly next week, but I want to send it to a few people first for feedback. To get it: 1. Like this post 2. Comment "ACCESS" And I'll DM it over (make sure you're following me so I can) Disclosure: This content is for educational purposes only, not investment advice, and not an offer of any securities

Ankur Nagpal

49,590 views • 3 months ago